Chapter 7 - NAOMI ON THE STAND
Naomi wore a navy suit to court.
Not because anyone told her to look respectable.
Her solicitor told her the opposite.
“Wear something you can breathe in.”
She chose navy because Amaya said it made her look expensive.
Good enough.
Lorenzo did not sit where she could see him.
Witness support staff arranged separate waiting areas.
The prosecution began simply.
Name.
Age.
Work history.
How she met Mateo.
Then money.
Naomi did not minimize.
“He paid me to watch Lorenzo.”
“For what purpose?”
“At first, schedules. Who he met. Which cars he used.”
“Did you know why?”
“No.”
“Did you care?”
She paused.
“Not enough.”
That answer mattered.
Then:
“Why agree?”
“Money.”
“Only?”
“My sister needed treatment. I was behind on rent. Mateo made it sound harmless.”
Then:
“When did it stop feeling harmless?”
“When he asked me to put a tracker in Lorenzo’s car.”
“What did you do?”
“Refused.”
Then threats.
Amaya’s photographs.
abduction.
warehouse.
chair.
No embellishment.
Then defense.
Mateo’s barrister was polite.
That made questions sharper.
“You were not kidnapped six months ago when this photograph was taken?”
“No.”
“You willingly accepted money?”
“Yes.”
“You lied to Lorenzo?”
“Yes.”
“You continued taking Mateo’s money for months?”
“Yes.”
“You only stopped when he asked you to commit a more serious act?”
“I stopped when I understood how far it was going.”
“So yes.”
“Yes.”
Then:
“You told Lorenzo that Mateo wanted you to disappear.”
“He did.”
“Yet Mateo arranged for Lorenzo to find you alive.”
“I didn’t know that then.”
“So your first accusation was partly wrong.”
Naomi swallowed.
“Yes.”
Important.
She had believed Mateo meant kill.
Evidence showed he meant use as bait, though risk of harm real.
Then:
“Mateo’s men were told to make your injuries visible, correct?”
“From what I later learned.”
“You were not intended to die.”
“No.”
The defense wanted jury to hear:
theater, not attempted murder.
Still kidnapping and assault.
Then:
“Lorenzo paid your sister’s medical expenses the same night.”
“His cousin’s clinic covered it through assistance.”
“At his request.”
“Yes.”
“And shortly after, you began cooperating with police against Mateo.”
“Yes.”
“Convenient.”
Naomi looked at jury.
“It was convenient that my sister got care. It doesn’t change who tied me to a chair.”
Good.
Then:
“Did Lorenzo threaten you in the van?”
“Yes.”
Court shifted.
Prosecutor looked.
Naomi continued:
“He said if I was lying he’d put me in the river.”
There.
No protecting him.
Mateo’s barrister smiled.
“So both men frightened you.”
“Yes.”
“Yet you trust Lorenzo.”
“With some things.”
Specific.
Then:
“You care about him?”
Objection? Could be relevance. Judge allows limited due bias.
Naomi said:
“Yes.”
No shame.
Then:
“Love him?”
She paused.
“That is not why I am here.”
Good.
Then Mateo watched her.
No smile.
For first time, he looked old.
Then Mia testified by video to reduce stress.
She described:
being taken.
being told father owed debt.
trust release.
threats toward mother.
She did not identify Cole.
Mateo.
Clear.
Then Carlo.
He described discovering fraud.
warning recording.
Dryland shooting.
Defense played Lorenzo voice note:
“If Carlo skims again, I’ll bury him.”
Carlo looked at transcript.
“Did Lorenzo say that?”
“Yes.”
“Were you afraid?”
“Yes.”
“Did you think he might kill you?”
Carlo hesitated.
“At the time, maybe.”
Then:
“Why blame Mateo for shooting?”
“Because I saw Dryland before I was shot.”
There.
Direct.
Then Dryland’s plea testimony.
He admitted Mateo ordered:
“Stop Carlo talking.”
He interpreted as shoot.
Did Mateo say kill?
“No.”
Again specific.
Then Mateo’s own testimony.
Risky.
He took stand.
He admitted trust transfers but called them restructuring.
He admitted Naomi was paid source.
Denied ordering her harmed beyond “pressure.”
Denied Mia kidnapping intent; claimed security hold while documents clarified.
The jury heard euphemisms.
Then Lorenzo.
Courtroom changed when he entered.
People knew him.
He hated that.
He swore.
Prosecutor asked:
“Did Mateo Russo work for you?”
Lorenzo said:
“With me.”
Important.
Then:
“Were you head of organization?”
“Yes.”
“Did you commit crimes together?”
“Yes.”
No pretending.
Then:
“Did you authorize trust transfers?”
“No.”
“Is this your signature?”
“It looks like mine.”
“Did you sign?”
“No.”
Expert evidence already supported forgery.
Then:
“Did you order Naomi abducted?”
“No.”
“Carlo shot?”
“No.”
“Mia restrained?”
“No.”
Then:
“Did you threaten Naomi after rescuing her?”
“Yes.”
The word rescue almost bothered him.
He said:
“I removed her from warehouse. Then threatened her in van.”
Good.
Then defense.
Mateo’s barrister attacked.
“Mr. Moretti, you expect this jury to believe the man beside you for twenty-five years suddenly became criminal without your knowledge?”
Lorenzo almost laughed.
“We were both criminals.”
“Convenient distinction.”
“Not really.”
Then:
“You delegated finances to Mateo?”
“Yes.”
“Beneficiary trust?”
“Yes.”
“You rarely reviewed?”
“Yes.”
“So if he misused it, your negligence enabled it.”
“Yes.”
That answer unsettled the defense.
Then:
“You are testifying for sentence credit.”
“Yes.”
“You want Mateo convicted.”
“Yes.”
“Because he betrayed you.”
Lorenzo paused.
“Because he did what evidence says he did.”
“Do you hate him?”
“Yes.”
“Then you are biased.”
“Yes.”
No clean witness.
Then barrister played recording of Lorenzo threatening Carlo.
“You speak like this often?”
“Too often.”
“People fear you.”
“Yes.”
“Mateo feared you.”
“Probably.”
“So when he says he acted under coercion—”
Lorenzo interrupted only after permission.
“He had money, authority, lawyers, houses, and twenty-five years beside me. Fear can be real without making every choice involuntary.”
The judge told him answer only question.
Fair.
Then:
“Did you ever threaten Mateo if he left?”
Lorenzo thought.
Once, years ago:
“We leave together or not at all.”
Could be loyalty.
Could be threat.
“Yes, in language that could be understood that way.”
Again.
Then:
“Did you prevent him from leaving?”
“No evidence.
“No.”
Then:
“If Mateo was so free, why did he need secret money?”
“I can’t tell you his mind.”
Good.
No speculation.
Then court adjourned.
Outside, reporters shouted.
Lorenzo said nothing.
Naomi left another exit.
That night, she texted:
You told the truth about the van.
He answered:
You did too.
Then:
I hated hearing it.
So did I.
No romance.
Just two people refusing to edit each other cleaner.
Then verdict days later.
Mateo convicted on:
Naomi’s kidnapping and assault conspiracy.
Mia’s false imprisonment/kidnapping-related offenses.
trust fraud and forgery.
conspiracy connected to Carlo shooting.
Acquitted on one more serious count requiring proof he intended Carlo’s death.
Important.
Dryland’s interpretation was not enough.
Financial counts:
guilty.
Sentence substantial.
Not life.
No applause.
Lorenzo sat at home.
Naomi called.
“It’s over.”
“No.”
She understood.
Trials end.
Consequences continue.
Then Adrian Cole.
The evidence from Mateo opened separate case.
But Cole was acquitted of kidnapping conspiracy later? Maybe civil/fraud. Save chapter 8.
Naomi said:
“What now?”
Lorenzo looked around his Chelsea house.
No men.
No club.
No Mateo.
“Now I find out what my own case costs.”
And for once, he sounded more afraid of lawful judgment than any rival.
Mateo’s sentencing hearing was quieter than the trial.
Naomi did not attend.
Mia did not attend.
Carlo did.
Lorenzo did not.
Victim statements were read by counsel.
Naomi’s said:
Mateo first bought my choices, then threatened the choices he could no longer buy.
She did not mention Lorenzo.
Good.
Mia’s said:
I was told my father owed a debt to men I had never met. The truth was that adults owed duties to me.
That line appeared in newspapers.
Lorenzo clipped nothing.
Then Carlo’s statement:
I spent years believing loyalty meant not asking which signature was real.
Specific.
The judge sentenced Mateo to a lengthy custodial term reflecting kidnapping, fraud, and conspiracy, with some counts concurrent and some not. Not life. Not symbolic eternity.
Dryland received a lower sentence under cooperation.
Then Lorenzo’s mother called from Naples.
She had known Mateo since he was a teenager.
“How could you testify against him?”
Lorenzo looked at the wall.
“He committed the crimes.”
“He saved you.”
“Yes.”
“Does that mean nothing?”
“No.”
Then:
“It means one true thing. It does not cancel the others.”
His mother cried.
“You boys were brothers.”
Lorenzo said:
“We were.”
Past tense.
Not because every memory became false.
Because the relationship no longer survived what happened.
Then Naomi called later.
“My mother thinks I should never speak to you again.”
“Reasonable.”
“Amaya thinks you’re secretly romantic.”
“Also reasonable.”
Naomi laughed.
Then:
“I don’t know what I think.”
“You don’t need to decide today.”
That was the opposite of the van.
Five minutes.
Choose who is lying.
River threat.
He remembered.
Then:
“I’m sorry for what I said in that van.”
Naomi went quiet.
“You already apologized.”
“I know.”
“Then don’t keep making me reassure you.”
He stopped.
Right.
Remorse can become another demand.
“I won’t.”
Then she said:
“Goodnight, Lorenzo.”
Not boss.
Not savior.
His name.
Enough.
May you like
The verdict changed Mateo’s legal status. It did not rewrite the twenty-five years before it, and none of them pretended it did.
No courtroom could decide what their old friendship had meant before the crimes were exposed. Ever.
